APHC010450422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8951/2025 Between: 1. DONTHALA ANIL KUMAR, S/O.D.GOVIND, AGED 25 YEARS OCC PRIVATE SERVICE R/O.D.NO.19-10-29/4, CHINNIAPA RAO THOTA BHIMAVARAM, W.G.DISTRICT, AP 2. RAYIDI SIVA KUMAR, S/O.NAGESWARA RAO OCCPRIVATE SERVICE, R/O.D.NO.19-15-38/2 REDDY COLONY, BHIMAVARAM, W.G.DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Station House Officer, Bhimavaram Rural Police Station Bhimavaram, W.G.District. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AtAmaravathi, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking for granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 3 in crime No. 134of 2025 of Bhimavaram Rural Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Prior to 15-07-2025, One Badrinath stayed in Madhapur along with his friends accused Nos. 1 and 3 from whom he borrowed amounts. As Badrinath failed to repay the amounts, on 15-07-2025, accused Nos. 1 to 4 came to him, stopped him, beat him, abused him and took his car which led him to decide to commit suicide. Being humiliated, Badrinath returned to Kovvada and became depressed. On 15-07-2025 at 8 p.m., Badrinath consumed Paraquat Pesticide. Immediately, he was shifted to hospital for treatment. While undergoing treatment, Badrinath died on 14-08-2025 in Government Hospital at Machilipatnam. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, representing Sri G.Yaswanth,learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families and their arrest 3 would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioners. The petitioners undertaketo abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioners. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioners have permanent places of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law.It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined.It is submitted that enlargement of the petitionerson bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioners. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioners, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice.It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioners absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioners donot deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. 4 POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. One K.Badrinath, aged about 25 years, indebted an amount of Rs.25,000/- to accused Nos. 1 and 2. He could not repay the amount. Therefore, the accused took the car of Badrinath and asked him to repay the amount along with interest and then take back the car. Later, the accused demanded for repayment of the amount and abused him. The accused also stated that if Badrinath fails to repay the amount, he would die. This happened on 05-07-2025. Unable to bear the insult, Badrinath consumed Paraquat Pesticide by mixing it in food. He got ill-health and he was admitted in a hospital at Guntur on 16-07-2025. On 29-07-2025, Badrinath felt inconvenience in taking breath. Later, he was shifted to higher institutions for better treatment on 06-08-2025. Eventually, on 14-08-2025, he died. One week after the alleged abetment to commit suicide, Badrinath consumed pesticide. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitionerswith the following stringent conditions: 5 (i) In the event of arrest, the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing each a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Bhimavaram Rural Police Station; (ii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 3shall appear before the Station House Officer, Bhimavaram Rural Police Station, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm till cognizance is taken by learned trial Court; (iii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 3shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer, Bhimavaram Rural Police Station; (iv) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 3shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (v) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 3shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required; (vi) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 3shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and 6 (vii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 3shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:10-09-2025, JSK 7 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8951 OF 2025 DATE: 10-09-2025 JSK 8